The threats to political speech are very real in parts of Europe, and a direct byproduct of Marxist thought.
When I wrote earlier about America’s Constitutions (both federal and each state-level charter document) being a bulwark against Socialism, that was fact, not rhetoric.
It is incredibly difficult to shut people up in the USA, especially in 2025 with social media increasingly seeing the writing on the wall, and aligning with the concept of free speech.
What I wrote on facebook this morning to an audience of Mainers would likely see me imprisoned in His Majesty’s salt mines in the UK, or wherever they place people who speak clearly about the political situation.
You welcome trans ideology? CRT and intersectionality?
Also, with regard to free speech, Europeans have been murdered for expressing negative ideas about Islam. How many in American media, government or even the private sector have had the courage to do this? Christians and Jews are free game but Muslims are off limits. So don’t say that Europeans are against free speech when some have been killed for engaging in it.
The hate speech arrests seem to be linked to the violent riots caused by false information spreaded by anti-immigration groups.
If it’s a right way or not, that’s a different topic. I don’t personally like that people can shout lies whenever they want.
Where I live, the hate speech judgments wary. There are cases where people weren’t judged, some too easy judgments and some really important ones (like when pro-russian propagandist Johan Bäckman was sentenced for making lies and threatening Finnish journalist who was writing about him).
Hate speech laws can be criticized if they’re about “hurting people’s feelings”, but in Europe disinformation and lies are often used as a weapon to silence certain groups (to make them fear to speak for themselves).
In Germany the AfD claims that they’re silenced. Apparently silencing means being a functional and growing political party who can campaign freely. Other parties aren’t mostly co-opetaring with them, but you can not force co-operation.
So in here it takes a lot more than hurting somebody’s feelings by criticising immigration or whatever.
PS. I agree that speaking about this is difficult, since there are over 30 countries in Europe. The hate speech laws and political culture varies a lot from country to country. I have no deep insight about UKs situation in this topic. I did read few articles now (including the one you posted), but I need to take more time to say anything definitive.
It can be done relatively easy by anybody who knows how to search for information and critically judge it.
Somebody saying something is false or true is of course not enough. This is very strong trend in these days, often people talk about how they feel, not how things actually are.
But if you look into the riots happened in the UK, it’s fairly clear that they started from tragedy that sparked all kind of speculations which did not hold water.
People act as though we don’t have slander, libel and defamation of character laws in the US. We also have laws against making threats. We even have crimes designated as hate crimes.
Information gatekeepers have never, not once, been shown to be the impartial arbiters of truth they claim to be. They are always instruments of power first, explainers of things second.
The whole concept of fact checkers belongs in the trash.
Joe Rogan, a self-proclaimed uneducated meathead, has more influence than all mainstream media outlets in the USA combined. They believe this is a problem to solve through heavy-handed censorship, character attacks, and all the rest of the usual tools.
His independent success and genuine personality have made him unassailable by the usual tools of subversion.
Rogan will go down as a far, far more influential media figure than Walter Kronkite, Ted Coppell, or any of the other activists posing as journalists in the propaganda industry.
Misleading people is the entire point of “fact checking”.
Can you give an example of something he could do that would inspire you to “join the mob”?
Some of these things gets a bit nebulous (like him directing where monies go or closing agencies that have already been funded and established by congress, which is congresses job so that would be unconstitutional as has been ruled by a judge) so it would be handy to have something to reference in black and white for when that line is crossed
Dictatorial behavior is even more nebulous and runs the gamut from things like media control and intimidation to executions of one’s enemies, so maybe an example or two from there might be useful too of what it’s too far
(Imagine a picture of trumps “if a person saves the country they have broken no law” tweet)
And slightly off topic but can you at least appreciate the collective aneurysm the right media media would have had if Biden or Obama has posted that tweet?
And yet, in the USA there were censoring consequences (some to the extent of cancelling those who felt free to express a differing opinion) for disagreeing with the administration’s “truth.” The administration determined that “truth.”
All they had was their political slant on the “best science.” And that was the only acceptable “truth.” Real easy, huh?
Imposing martial law under circumstances I find murky or questionable would be the most obvious action he could potentially take as President, but I’ve seen no evidence he will.
As of now everything is pretty solidly within the purview of the executive branch, including DOGE. I’d have to dig the article up, but I believe it was Obama who got the actual congressional approval and funding for this level of information systems access, but never used the authority in the way Trump is. Trump just renamed it and set it loose within the parameters laid out.
Boundaries get pushed by every single Presidential administration, and that’s what courts are for. This one will surely push boundaries too, some quite deliberately to provoke higher court rulings.
The same way humans have always discerned true from false. Fact checkers can lie with the truth, as well.
Who is “they?” Freedom of speech loving Americans? So just as you can find some in Europe who want to limit free speech, you can find many in America who feel the same way.
Vance going to Europe and trying to act like John Wayne and coming off condescending only creates divisiveness, which isn’t how you persuade people and build relationships. It’s corny. It’s buffoonery. We export wokeness and then criticize other nations for not being smarter than us and rejecting it. Our kids can’t read. They are suicidal. We have a drug epidemic as well as an obesity one. We are in no position to be giving the high hat.
Sooo basically nothing, unless you personally find it “murky”
So it actually sounds like he can break the constitution all he wants as long as he doesn’t institute martial law under circumstances you don’t personally like
Shoot, and I was about to save you a spot in line at the front of the mob
For another example, any actions outside the purview of the executive branch. If he declared that the speed limit in Lewiston is now 90 mph, for a benign example. Declaring that members of Congress can only serve one term would be another.
As far as “joining a mob” I would consider voting for someone else but…
I think I’ve been pretty damn clear. Socialists. I would also extend that to include people who work in the service of Socialists, often unknowingly.
That’s the reality people need to reckon with. Sometimes, you just don’t, but you still need to make a call about the situation.
The entire expert class has shredded its own credibility with public opinion. That too, is a reality people must reckon with.
We just elected Donald J. Trump, in spite of a staggering level of propaganda, lies and distorted historical narratives being foisted on Americans in an attempt to manipulate us.
That you have been calling us morons for a decade is your problem to reckon with, not mine.